Update: The PUCO denied OMAEG’s and others’ requests to reconsider its rulings that authorized DP&L to withdraw its ESP 2 and partially revert to its ESP 1. OMAEG argued that the rulings were unlawful because they authorized DP&L to blend provisions from its ESP 1 and ESP 2 together, permitted DP&L to resurrect an unlawful stability charge in the form of the Rate Stabilization Charge, and enabled DP&L to effectively override the Supreme Court of Ohio’s decision that invalidated the Service Stability Rider and collect more than what is otherwise authorized. OMAEG is considering whether it should appeal this unlawful implementation of the Court’s ruling to the Court.